Agenda item

(1)       Mr Sanjay Johal (National Flood Forum Flood Resilience Officer) gave a presentation.  The accompanying slides are contained within the electronic agenda papers on the KCC website.

(2)       Mr Johal said that the National Flood Forum (NFF) was a national charity helping to support communities at risk flooding across the country. It had 250 active Flood Action Groups made up of community representatives. It helped communities to recover when they had been flooded, and also worked to ensure that flood risk communities were at the centre of policy making and operational delivery.  This meant that there were three strands to its work.  The management worked on operational delivery and policy making whilst the Resilience Officers worked with the communities. 

(3)       Mr Johal continued by saying that the four key tenements of the NFF’s work were to facilitate, support, provide and train.  They supported the communities to recover from flooding, they provided information on flood insurance and products as well as other flooding issues that were pertinent to people within their community.  They also trained local authorities, agencies and volunteers to support people affected by floods. 

(4)       Mr Johal then set out the NFF’s objectives of working with flood risk communities in Kent.  One of the key objectives was improving understanding of local flood risk within local communities. This enabled them to support local communities to lead on and actively manage flood risk.  They helped improve communication between communities and the appropriate risk management authorities in order to ensure an effective partnership approach.   Another key objective was to improve the resilience of flood-vulnerable communities.   It was also important for the NFF to be able to identify best practice which could be followed in other areas.  This also applied to local communities who were able to discuss their experiences with others.

(5)       The risk management authorities which worked with the NFF in Kent were Kent County Council and its Highways Department, the Environment Agency, Southern Water, Local Councils, Internal Drainage Boards and the Kent Resilience Team.   The NFF worked to ensure that local communities understood each of these agencies’ roles and how they worked. 

(6)       Mr Johal explained the positive ways in which flood action groups worked.  His role was to support local communities and identify which of them would like to form a flood action group.   The benefits that the NFF saw arising from their creation were that it enabled communities to come together in partnership with those who managed flood risk.  They could also prepare to reduce the impact of flooding on their own homes and communities by ensuring that they were empowered to do so.  They also needed to understand what was outside their remit.  They could also work with other voluntary groups to instigate and support community emergency flood plans.

(7)       Mr Johal said that there were a large number of Flood Wardens in Kent, recruited and trained by the Environment Agency. Flood Wardens were a key part of their communities and proactively helped them deal with flood risk.   It was therefore important to ensure that they worked in partnership and maintained good relations with the local community and the Environment Agency.   The Flood Action Groups in Kent that Mr Johal was involved with aimed to work with and through the local flood wardens, not just during floods but in the intervening periods as well.   Working with flood wardens in the area empowered them to work with the community and in partnership with local authorities on issues identified as key factors. 

(8)       Mr Johal then set out the areas in Kent that he was working in. These were Hildenborough, Ightham, Headcorn, Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, Five Oak Green, East Peckham and Iwade.  Each of these areas had set up a Flood Action Group or was in the process of doing so. Each of them had its own issues and was giving consideration to how to manage its flood risk and were engaged in a multi-agency approach.  

(9)       Mr Johal said that Ightham was one of the areas he was working in.  A Flood Action Group had been set up in 2017. It had met on a number of occasions with the risk management authorities to discuss flood risk in the community.  The Group itself was made up of a mixture of flooded residents and local Parish Council Members. One of the main areas of concern was riparian ownership responsibility issues on the Busty river course.  The Group had discussed how to inform riparian owners of their responsibilities without having to resort to strongly-worded letters.   It had organised a riparian owner evening event in the local pub to discuss the issues.  The event had been supported by KCC and the Environment Agency.   The event was supported by KCC and the Environment Agency and had been a success. The Flood Action Group was able to put together a list of riparian owners so that they could use them to contact one another or a Flood Action Group member to ask for advice.  

(10)     Ightham Flood Action Group also decided to carry out a walkover of key areas of concern with the watercourse.  They identified a number of tasks that they could undertake to clear away the debris and organised a clean-up day in spring 2018 with the help of Tonbridge and Malling BC who had provided the necessary equipment.   One of the great successes of this operation was that it involved a number of other members of the community who were willing to help.  A second clean up day had already taken place and a third one was being arranged to take place after winter.

(11)     Mr Johal said that Ightham Flood Action Group was liaising with KCC who were delivering a Property Flood Resilience Project to individually protect each flood risk property. 

(12)     The Headcorn Flood Action Group was set up in 2017.  They had met with the Risk Management Authorities on several occasions to discuss flood risk in the community.  Their main concerns were surface water issues and housing development in the area.  They had discussed upgrades and work on the sewerage networks with Southern Water. As a result, they received weekly progress updates from the SW Development Team which they disseminated to the community on a weekly basis.    The Flood Action Group also produced a regular newsletter, which publicised upcoming events including a public engagement stand at Southern Water’s drop-in event in May.

(13)     Mr Johal added that the Headcorn Flood Action Group had played a very significant role during the flooding event in April.  Their communication network had informed the discussions at the next multi-agency meeting.  They were also setting up regular community activities such as the clearance of litter and debris from the watercourses.   Another activity was support for the development of the local Emergency Flood Plan in liaison with the Environment Agency and the Kent Resilience Team.

(14)     Mr Johal said that the Tunbridge Wells Flood Action Group had been established in Spring 2018 and was working in partnership with all the Risk Management Authorities.  It was made up of local residents and businesses with support from their MP.   As a result of support from the NFF and others, it was holding regular meetings and had also organised walk-overs to identify and highlight risks in Tunbridge Wells.  They were currently considering splitting into two sub-groups because of the large area covered. 

(15)     Mr Johal concluded his presentation by setting out the NFF’s programme of future working in Kent.  They would continue to arrange meetings with other Flood Risk communities in Kent, including multi-agency meetings.  They also intended to work with KCC to identify other communities who would benefit from this type of activity.  Meanwhile, they would aim to get the established Flood Action Groups to start thinking about their community resilience plans.

(16)     Mr Chittenden asked whether the NFF had experienced any difficulties in keeping the Flood Action Groups going after they had been set up.  Mr Johal replied that some of the communities where Flood Action Groups had been set up had not recently experienced a significant flooding event.  Flood Wardens had to be drawn from those areas which were not at risk of flooding. They had to be in a position to concentrate on their tasks without needing to worry about their own properties.  They supported the Flood Action Groups whose main work was driven by those who were at risk.  It was the NFF’s experience that people who had been flooded never forgot what had happened and consequently never lost their drive and enthusiasm.   They were also supported by KCC.  He added that, in Tonbridge, Flood Wardens were working hard to recruit to their ranks in order to ensure that the function continued to be filled if they had to give the role up for any reason.   He offered to discuss the situation in Tovil with Mr Chittenden once he had familiarised himself with it. 

(17)     Mrs Doyle said that the main problem in the Canterbury area was the winterbournes which often caused significant flooding problems during the winter months.  She asked whether there was any way of forecasting when such an event was likely to happen.  Mr Tant replied that it was certainly possible to forecast these events by monitoring groundwater levels, but impossible to stop them.  On the last occasion that a flooding event had arisen due to the winterbournes, the forecast had enabled the Flood Risk Authorities to gather 20,000 sandbags in preparation.  This had been very difficult to accomplish, and the early forecast had given them the necessary time to do so.

(18)     Mrs Mackonochie referred to Mr Johal’s slide Risk Management Agencies Involved and asked whether Network Rail was included.  Mr Johal said in reply that the slide in question referred to the agencies which were always involved.  If there were specific issues where Network Rail or other agencies could help, the NFF would seek to involve them as part of the partnership approach developed with the Flood Action Groups.  An example of this had occurred in Tunbridge Wells where local land management company had been invited to the meetings to discuss specific issues.  The NFF had involved Network Rail in such activities in other parts of the country. 

(19)     Mr Lake said that he lived at the junction between the Rivers Medway and Eden.   He said that there was great concern in Leigh and Penshurst (who he represented as a District Councillor) about the barrier.  He asked for an update which he could share with the two Parish Councils, which was particularly important in the light of development taking place in the area.  He added that Edenbridge suffered from terrible flooding problems and that its inhabitants were extremely keen to do something about it.  Yet there did not appear to be much support in this regard from the risk management agencies.  He then said that the Environment Agency and Southern Water had visited Fordcombe in 2018 and had stated that they wished to remove the weirs above Penshurst because they could not afford to maintain them.  He believed that this would lead to terrible problems further down river. 

(20)     Mr Johal said that the Environment Agency was holding drop-in events for the works at Leigh at places along the Upper Medway.  He was aware of the weir at Hildenborough because of his work with the community.  There, the Flood Action Group had welcomed the drop-in sessions for giving the initial information which informed further discussions between the Flood Action Group, the Environment Agency and the other risk management agencies.

(21)     Mr Tant said that the flood risk at Edenbridge arose from the main rivers, and that any plans to deal with it would be the responsibility of the Environment Agency.   One of the main issues was the bridge at Edenbridge which impacted upon the capacity of the river.  He offered to provide Mr Lake with the contact details of the Environment Agency. 

(22)     The Chairman said that he would be very keen to invite the Environment Agency to a meeting of the Committee to give an overview of their plans and their rationale. 

(23)     Mrs Mackonochie asked whether preparatory work was being undertaken to identify the risks and mitigatory measures that would be needed if the Leigh Barrier were to fail and the water were to be released.   Mr Tant replied that the Leigh Barrier storage area was already classified as a reservoir under the Reservoirs Act.  It was therefore subject to all the provisions of that Act, including the eventualities mentioned. 

(24)     Mr Harwood said that the Leigh Barrier could currently store 5.5 million m³ of water.  This would increase to 9 million m³ once the new embankments were in place.   KCC had a legal obligation under the Reservoir Act to undertake off-site planning.  This had been done and was very detailed as it was essential to understand where the footprint of the water would go and the velocity with which it would do so if there were a dam failure.   It also identified Emergency Planning muster points.

(25)     Mrs Brown said that in Yalding, contrary to what was normally the case, all the Flood Wardens actually lived in at-risk areas.   She added that in her experience, people did forget flooding events.  Residents had moved out of Yalding and been replaced by new ones who often had to be given an explanation of what could happen to their properties. The introduction of Flood Re meant that insurance was now available at an affordable cost.  In respect of the structures and weirs, Yalding PC had received a letter from South East Rivers Trust requesting a meeting. She suggested that those Parish Councils where weirs were should be identified and also invited.  She added that she was also concerned about Tovil because its Parish Council was no longer a member of KALC and did not appear to have support from anywhere.  She was aware that two of the Parish Chairmen in Maidstone had stated that their parishes did not need any help because they did not suffer from flooding. 

(26)     Mr Mortimer said that in Maidstone in the immediate aftermath of the flood of 2013 there had been a lot of interest and volunteering at various parish council meetings. This had dissipated to the point where there were no Flood Wardens in Maidstone Town, Tovil, Farleigh, or Barming.  The parish councils were not aware of the need for Flood Wardens, sandbags had become obsolete and nobody seemed to know how to replace them.  

(27)     The Chairman said that since the flooding and storms of 2013/14 there had been a decrease in interest which had reflected itself in a reduction in preventative work, even though flooding would certainly occur at some stage in the short to medium term future.   He thanked the members of the Committee for the way in which they were taking information from these meetings and disseminating them within their communities. 

(28)     Mr Rayner said that Hildenborough PC had at one time not been a member of KALC. It had only joined in 2015.  The reason they had dne so was that he as the Chairman of Tonbridge and Malling KALC and some of his officers had visited and persuaded them to join. He suggested that this approach could be replicated in Tovil.

(29)      Mr Pugh suggested that when the Environment Agency gave its presentation they should also be asked to explain how they were planning for flooding on Kent’s shoreline.

(30)     The Chairman said that in 2019, the Environment Agency was intending to do a light refresh of shoreline management plans.  He personally did not think they were fit for purpose.  The Met Office was intending to publish its projections for climate change in December 2018.  This would enable the Committee to ask the Environment Agency what it was going to do about the coastal strips amongst other things.  

(31)     Mr Balfour said that it would be far too detailed an exercise for the Environment Agency to explain its plans on a county-wide basis.  It was far better to do it at District level, with input from Local County Members.   He then said that every County and District Councillor attended the Parish Council meetings in their constituencies.   This was the opportunity to remind them about the need to finalise their flood plans and ensure that Flood Wardens were recruited and organised.   

(32)     Mr Laws said that a shoreline map had been produced. This included an explanation of what was planned in Kent.   They indicated what works were planned and where it was intended that nature would take its course.  The latest map indicated an intention to lose 2 metres in Folkestone and Hythe.   His biggest concern was the Galloways Road area in Lydd where the sea could break through quite easily. 

(33)     The Chairman said that the local Shoreline Management Plan indicated that Lydd Ranges and Denge Marshes were not going to be protected in the long term. This Plan was out of date and it would be very interesting to see what revisions were made in respect of that area when the new one came out in 2019.  

(34)     Mr Pugh said that the plan for the North Kent coast had not had any map for the past five years. It was essential that people knew what was intended there.   There was a responsibility to maintain the shoreline rather than leave it unprotected.

(35)     RESOLVED that:-

(a)        Mr Sanjay Johal be thanked for his presentation; and

(b)          the Environment Agency be invited to attend the next meeting of the Committee in order to discuss the aspects of its flood management plans and other matters raised during the meeting in the light of the Climate Change projections from the Met Office which are due to be published before the end of 2018.